spider_ai_links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the AI requirement and the AI-driven behavior ('uses AI to find and categorize them'), but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Given it's a link extraction tool, the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a minor gap, resulting in a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded: three short sentences cover purpose, usage, and a critical requirement. There is no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, usage, and a key constraint (AI subscription). It also hints at the output by saying 'find and categorize them'. With all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, this is sufficient, though it does not explain return formats in detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'Describe what links you want' adds a small amount of context for the 'prompt' parameter, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'limit' or 'return_format'. Schema coverage is 100%, so no further compensation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('extraction and filtering') and describes the AI-powered approach. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spider_links by emphasizing AI and natural language prompts ('Describe what links you want').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: users describe what links they want. It also states a prerequisite (active AI subscription plan). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., spider_links) or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.